Purchasing-plank
category: Platform Planks from Mark Rauterkus category: accountability Fumbles of the past diminish power in the present. * The loss of the city's Purchasing department nets a loss of leverage in the market place for the city. But it is an increase in power to the county. Buyers have power as spending decisions occur. * Values beyond the bottom line savings matter. :I value the market and think that the power within the market place needs to be respected. ::I am not a frequent Walmart shopper. ::I like to choose to take my spending to local businesses. I have power in our family budget, with choices, and that empowerment gives other benefits. * The unified Purchasing Department, created with the merger of the city's purchasing to the county makes for a streamlined opportunity for cost saving. However, the bigger department could result in bigger opportunities for corruption and influence peddling to cronies. Therefore, the unified purchasing process and department needs to be watched with greater scrutiny. * The merged departments among city and county has a sunset provision. That is wonderful. Decisions such as these should be re-visited in the future in automatic ways. Grant Street cronies of the past had an inability to make prudent financial decisions, hence the distressed status and the associated ramifications. Loss of the city's purchasing department is justified. # The merger saves taxpayers some money. # Mergers among city and county services generally make sense. # Overboard spending from the past City of Pittsburgh officials has been overboard and spending trustworthyness is suspect. Outsourcing the purchasing makes for another layer of protections and oversight. With the merger, a city council member can not influence the purchasing decisions from the county any more than an average citizen can sway matters. Perhaps that accounted for some of the reasons why the deal took years to complete. * Generally: The city and county need to merge some services. * Generally: As a city resident, and as a county resident, I want to see certain administrative functions merged so as to save money. Mergers should be encouraged if corruption can be avoided. I do not want pockets of power where corruption can fester. I do want open systems that are more visible to all citizens so as to thwart underhanded temptations and dealings. * Generally: As mergers occur, a step to co-location makes sense before the department is eliminated. The co-location of purchasing was slated for a six-month period. Staged, deliberate mergers with smaller steps is prudent. Avoid overtime. Insist upon change, but make gradual, continual, employee assisted, efforts without downtime and undo stresses on the systems. * City council members should choose to not meddle in the purchasing process of Allegheny County. * As a city council member, I would choose to hold those who made promises of savings to those statements. In years to come I will celebrate, in public, with fanfare, either the savings achievements of the merger. Otherwise, I will scorn the miss-placed promises of the merger. I'll watch the end results of the systems and note accountability in an aggressive manner with follow-through. * I won't buy into false hopes, with or without a purchasing department. We should not roll out the red carpet for the same-old snake-oil salesmen and policy peddlers. ** The nonprofit Pennsylvania Economy League predicted $5 million to $10 million in savings over three years. This is sure to be a broken promise and hype. The PA Economy League has marginal creditability at best, at present. These savings will not materialize. :Savings could reside in payroll, but only marginal savings are predicted for the city's payroll. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05333/613993.stm * I'll insure that payroll efforts do not occur within city government's domain. I'll work to enforce the merger, both on paper and in reality of actions by all involved. The worst outcome could be a merger of purchasing to the county, but the city still does those duties (shopping, buying) with city employees from throughout various departments. :The city's share of the costs for this merger needs to be monitored, for both the benefit of the city and the county. Fair deals are not a hallmark of Mayor Murphy. Adjustments are expected. Council members need to be open to those adjustments, moving quickly if necessary. * I'd avoid big-ticket spending on mega construction projects. On average, the City of Pittsburgh spends $20 million per year in construction contracts, handled by the purchasing department. My acts and votes would be much more reasoned and tight with city spendings. For example, I'd not agree to build, with taxpayer expenses, stadiums and convention centers. We need to repair and maintain what we have first. And, the bulk of that work needs to be done by in-house public-works efforts, as it is more affordable. * The city's procurement rules should be lessened or removed to suggestions. Without authority, efficient and effective goals from purchasing can't be expected. :Of course, the county purchasing department would purchase what department heads needed. The county would abide by city procurement rules for city construction contracts and for purchases of things the county doesn't buy, like firefighting vehicles. The bulk of goods and services, though, would be bought under the county's rules.